I think obsessed is a perfect word to describe today's society and its reliance on media and communications technology. Today's society seems entrenched in cellphones, iPods, computers, internet, videogames, and many other forms of media. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but I think it is essential to realize how much we rely on technology, and what consequences would be faced if we didn't have it.
My experiment to see if I could do without media or technology for 24 hours was pretty short of success. I made it to about 4 or 5 hours and gave in. My initial expectations though foresaw this, though. Over the Thanksgiving Break I had several important school assignments outside of this experiment, and the stress from needing to complete those is what I suspect what led to my downfall. Danna Walker's article, "The Longest Day", is an account of Danna Walker's similar assignment for her students at American University. Many of the activities her students described were things I had planned to do during my isolation from electronic media. From a long list of ideas I had, a few were reading a book, helping my father with yardwork, playing football with my friends.
I started my day at 11 A.M. and make myself a large breakfast. I had two over-easy eggs, a few slices of bacon, a bagel with cream cheese, and a glass of orange juice. After breakfast I went out to help my dad bring wood up onto our deck for our wood stove. At 1:30 A.M. I showered and started reading a book in my room. Around 2:45 or so I began to get edgy about my schoolwork was worried that I wouldn't be able to finish it all before coming back to school. I continued reading my book for another half hour before giving into temptation. It was then I began to work on my school assignments on my laptop and failed the experiment. I strongly believe that if I didn't have as much work to do I wouldn't have failed so quickly or at all. Though I found it very easy not to use my cellphone, mostly because I am not very attached to it to begin with. I do text a lot sometimes, and call my friends occasionally, but I found it fairly easy to just turn it off. Before I started I had alerted all my friends that I would be busy all day so they shouldn't plan anything too fun because I won't be able to contact them. One of my friends suggested that we play football. I was okay with that, but by the time they were ready to play at four, I had already failed. I just couldn't let my work go untouched because my grades this semester are vital to continuing my college career at UMBC. I think our reliance on technology has become so advanced that we can't do normal things without the internet. I agree with one of Walker's students who said that we have over media-medicated our society. Her student also claimed that as long as we don't forget our addiction to media and remember our personal responsibility to appreciate it, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think the media has become apart of our culture and evolution as a species. Being constantly connected has positives and negatives, but as long as you are proactive against the negatives, it's not such a horrible thing. For example, a positive would be that if you have an emergency and need to contact a family member or friend, you can just pull out your cellphone and call them. Negatively though, relying on media so much can be misinformative. If you just watch the evening news every night without looking for more information on your own, you may not see the entire side of the issue. Personal responsibility and being more proactive and skeptical of the media is important to realizing it's faults and becoming a more intelligent society. My own personal experience has really shown how important the media is to me. I need to be able to contact my friends and family in multiple ways, but usually I don't overload it. As well, music is essential to my happiness. It's a huge part of my life; I spend at least 4 hours a day listening to music amongst doing other things. The biggest thing I learned from this experiment was that I believe I am able to survive comfortably without media, but academic constraints were what lead to my failure. I think the internet had a huge role in this because many of my assignments were on Blackboard and could not be done without the Internet. Our reliance on the Internet is pretty extreme at this point, both in casual life as well as academic and professional life. The fact that most professors insist that college paper be typed and formatted in a specific way is the prospect that bothers me to most. I would say most college students prefer to type their papers, but I love to write them. I get a lot more satisfaction in writing by hand. As well, it is a lot easier for me edit my papers and improve them.
Overall, this was a positive experience for me as it reminded me of the things I don't normally do anymore. I use to read a lot than I do now, but because of college and the media I don't as much. An important thing that I noticed after my failure, was while I am home I spend more time outside because we don't have a good internet connection. I think it's important to remember the things that can be done and enjoyed without electronic media. Going outside and just being in the sun is something that people take for granted sometimes. Even at live concerts now they have large TVs to allow patrons to see better. While it is a good convenience, it can also detract from the real thing.
Though my reliance on media and technology is strong, the purposes I use it for seem to me to be okay, and I think that I would be pretty bored without my iPod. But this experience has shown me to be more self-conscious about my media habits and my reliance on technology.
Monday, 1 December 2008
Monday, 10 November 2008
Two Cultures
Camille Paglia and Neil Postman argue different points about the inherent abilities of man, and how media in its different forms influences us. I agree somewhat with Postman, but only on a few ideas. Postman argues that humans are biologically programmed to be illiterate. But for me, from what I remember and what I have seen from some children, learning to read and write has been a first nature. Phonetics and the voice of words allows us to so easily transpose it onto paper, and take it from paper and turn it into sound. Paglia then argues that those are adept readers may not be physically active as others, but in many cases it simply is not true. I myself have played hockey for two years during highschool, and I started reading book at about the same time. Sometimes the books were about hockey, but more often than not they were fiction. Postman later argues that using images as a symbol in capitalism to sell products, like cars, or using God to sell hotdogs, you deprive the symbol of it's meaning. In some cases that is true, but there others where the product you sell gives the symbol meanings. For example, in music, album art created for a record is often in conjunction with the music of that record. A perfect example is Death Cab For Cutie's album art for their 2003 release Transatlanticism.
The title track of the album, Transatlanticism", is about the distance between people in significant relationships and with that, the album art is of a blackbird trapped in red yarn. The album art is given meaning by the music itself, as much of the album is about feeling trapped and far away from parts of life, being romantic interests or from not wanting to wait to be old, like in "The Sound of Settling." I do agree with Postman that television and reading are two different things and require different analytical approaches. Analyzing literature is based upon itself, literature. You would compare two books together and determine one, which one was more sophisticated in it's prose and rhetoric, how it flowed through. But comparing literature to television is like comparing apples to oranges. Books and television programs require different things to make them successful, and different people can analyze them differently. For example, you wouldn't analyze a slap-stick, toilet-humor comedy program on it's sophistication of language. Most comedy programs are simply in their jokes to drive the success of the show. The more people that understand it, the more would watch. It also depends on the content of the show. Some you could analyze like a book, but you're really analyzing the vocal aspect of speech. A well prepared dialogue that is excellent in it's prose and rhetoric compared the same dialogue ill-prepared would have different affects on the audience. But if you read that dialogue on paper, it would stand out as being uniform, there is no difference between the two on paper. I also agree with Postman on the idea of a difference between the first television President, and the first image President. Just being on television and speaking to an audience doesn't create an image. It also takes a pragmatic speaker and a certain voice to capture an audience, not just being on television. This is also true for the words themselves. A well-written speech can mean nothing if the speaker isn't able to effectively capture his or her audience. The same goes for music, and many other forms of media outside of the written word. A well-written song loses meaning and success even if the vocalist can't "do it justice".
References:
Communication In History. Crowley, David. Heyer, Paul. 2007. Pearson Education Inc. Chapter 38: "Two Cultures - Television Versus Print. Neil Postman and Camille Paglia."
The title track of the album, Transatlanticism", is about the distance between people in significant relationships and with that, the album art is of a blackbird trapped in red yarn. The album art is given meaning by the music itself, as much of the album is about feeling trapped and far away from parts of life, being romantic interests or from not wanting to wait to be old, like in "The Sound of Settling." I do agree with Postman that television and reading are two different things and require different analytical approaches. Analyzing literature is based upon itself, literature. You would compare two books together and determine one, which one was more sophisticated in it's prose and rhetoric, how it flowed through. But comparing literature to television is like comparing apples to oranges. Books and television programs require different things to make them successful, and different people can analyze them differently. For example, you wouldn't analyze a slap-stick, toilet-humor comedy program on it's sophistication of language. Most comedy programs are simply in their jokes to drive the success of the show. The more people that understand it, the more would watch. It also depends on the content of the show. Some you could analyze like a book, but you're really analyzing the vocal aspect of speech. A well prepared dialogue that is excellent in it's prose and rhetoric compared the same dialogue ill-prepared would have different affects on the audience. But if you read that dialogue on paper, it would stand out as being uniform, there is no difference between the two on paper. I also agree with Postman on the idea of a difference between the first television President, and the first image President. Just being on television and speaking to an audience doesn't create an image. It also takes a pragmatic speaker and a certain voice to capture an audience, not just being on television. This is also true for the words themselves. A well-written speech can mean nothing if the speaker isn't able to effectively capture his or her audience. The same goes for music, and many other forms of media outside of the written word. A well-written song loses meaning and success even if the vocalist can't "do it justice".
References:
Communication In History. Crowley, David. Heyer, Paul. 2007. Pearson Education Inc. Chapter 38: "Two Cultures - Television Versus Print. Neil Postman and Camille Paglia."
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
2008 Election..According to the Media.
I didn't watch TV or, listen to the radio to follow the election for 2008's Presidential Election. I had homework to catch up on, and I don't have a television, so instead, I used Google Maps Election Results. On Wednesday, after the election, I searched on news websites like CNN and Fox News, as well as YouTube to see how the different stations broadcasted the election results.
Simply watching the election fold out on Google Maps was boring, but at same time eliminated any media bias. It was interesting though to know how many citizens voted for whom in each county. As well, on the map, when you hover the mouse over a state, it tells you how many electoral votes that state has. Another thing that was different in this form of broadcasting that I noticed is in the news clips and reports of the results of the election; an enormous amount of emphasis was placed on Barack Obama's ethnicity. A Fox News, a clip was showed of an African-American reporter who used the analogy that when he was a boy, growing up in a black neighborhood, his father told him the American people would never elect a black president. In my opinion, I don't think so much emphasis should placed on Obama's ethnicity, especially in the media and by the reporters. Being proud of one's heritage and the fact that we now have a black president is a good thing, and by no means is it not. But couldn't we be overlooking the fact that what is really important is what Obama says he will do and what he actually does? I think Obama's failure in his presidency would seriously hurt the black community of America, but he's success; then is a time to rejoice.
Another thing I noticed was that with the simple map, there is no emotion, which seemed to eliminate bias. It let users of it to freely observe whatever state or county they wished, and gave ample information about each. The Wallstreet Journal recently published a video on YouTube, portraying a life-size cutout (much like the one that sits in a lounge in Harbor Hall) and that people didn't even notice it set up on the street. It seemed ridiculous to think that people would think it was actually Obama when up close, and the Journal then showed clips of voters interviewing the "fake" Obama. [1]
The internet as a medium for information and source is a new resource, but caution should used as well. I could not locate how Google got the information for their map, how they calculated the totals, so I checked with a few friends periodically who I knew were watching the election on television, and the numbers were relatively the same. So whether or not you watched the election fold out through television, or the radio, or the internet, information was still the same, but it was also presented very differently.
Simply watching the election fold out on Google Maps was boring, but at same time eliminated any media bias. It was interesting though to know how many citizens voted for whom in each county. As well, on the map, when you hover the mouse over a state, it tells you how many electoral votes that state has. Another thing that was different in this form of broadcasting that I noticed is in the news clips and reports of the results of the election; an enormous amount of emphasis was placed on Barack Obama's ethnicity. A Fox News, a clip was showed of an African-American reporter who used the analogy that when he was a boy, growing up in a black neighborhood, his father told him the American people would never elect a black president. In my opinion, I don't think so much emphasis should placed on Obama's ethnicity, especially in the media and by the reporters. Being proud of one's heritage and the fact that we now have a black president is a good thing, and by no means is it not. But couldn't we be overlooking the fact that what is really important is what Obama says he will do and what he actually does? I think Obama's failure in his presidency would seriously hurt the black community of America, but he's success; then is a time to rejoice.
Another thing I noticed was that with the simple map, there is no emotion, which seemed to eliminate bias. It let users of it to freely observe whatever state or county they wished, and gave ample information about each. The Wallstreet Journal recently published a video on YouTube, portraying a life-size cutout (much like the one that sits in a lounge in Harbor Hall) and that people didn't even notice it set up on the street. It seemed ridiculous to think that people would think it was actually Obama when up close, and the Journal then showed clips of voters interviewing the "fake" Obama. [1]
The internet as a medium for information and source is a new resource, but caution should used as well. I could not locate how Google got the information for their map, how they calculated the totals, so I checked with a few friends periodically who I knew were watching the election on television, and the numbers were relatively the same. So whether or not you watched the election fold out through television, or the radio, or the internet, information was still the same, but it was also presented very differently.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Dreams of a Mass NHL Society.
Mass media impacted the consumer society in a significant way. Mass media was derived out of the movie industry and vaudeville's demise. As movies became more popular and the spread of theaters created an American past-time, consumers were given an introduction to mass culture.
Rosalynd Williams provides a good example of how mass media introduced a different consumer society in her essay "Dreams Worlds of Consumption". Williams provides the example of department stores. Department stores were a new thing, the freedom to browse and fantasize about owning things while not being obligated to buy them. As well, this introduced a different setting for shopping. No longer did consumers have a large say in how prices were established, giving way to a more corporate world. Department stores were organized to inflame and increase the desires of materials things and feelings. Expositions, trade fairs, and even amusement parks are other examples of this mass consumer society. These events and services can hold thousands of people and offer a multitude of things to do, buy, and see. Electrical lighting played a huge role in mass consumer society. In the 1900 exposition it was the first time electrical lighting was used on a mass scale, showing how artificial light and how useful it is. As with corporate department stores, lighting was immediately exploited for commercial purposes. This allowed the progress of advertisement billboards, and initiated the start of a consumer society where products are mass produced and mass distributed.
Jackson Lears essay entitled, "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society" shows a different aspect of how consumer society came about, through advertising. Advertisers' outlook on how to appeal to consumers changed drastically with a new sensibility, that the office men of the time needed to vent frustration and and longing through purchases. Advertisers' continued to view their audience as a childlike culture, that consumers were easily pleased. This gave way to products that were cheaply made and sold for higher prices.
Advertisements can promise a lot of things, from sunny beach vacations to a vaccum cleaner that will never clog or jam. The National Hockey League recently published an advertisement for a special rebate offer on the NHL Game Center Live, an internet service that allows buyers to watch any NHL game in TV-quality streaming. My initial reaction to this ad was one of interest. I am a big hockey fan and I love going to see the Capitals and watching their games on television. I don't have a television in my dorm room, so this sparked my interest a great deal. I also noticed how they put a large emphasis on the "Live" aspect, that is, watching games in real-time and not a pre-recorded version of them. The advertisement is very straight forward; it has a black background, the NHL logo, and the text saying "NHL Game Center Live." I noticed that "Live" is blue text while the rest is white, giving it emphasis and showing what exactly the advertisement offers. I think the advertisement is mostly black and white because that is predominantly the setting of a hockey rink. The ice in its majority is white and the puck is black. This seems like the NHL is trying to attract older hockey fans. Older meaning they have followed the sport longer than most, not that they are necessarily older in age. It seems very obvious what the NHL is offering. It is a paid service that allows buyers to watch NHL games live and on the internet at a discounted price until the special offer expires. My initial reaction to the "special offer" part of the advertisement was that of skepticism. I feel as though when special offers are presented to consumers as a ploy to convince them to buy something. While this is the obvious aim of an advertisement, I'm not sure that it's actually a fair deal. How do we know that the special offer isn't overpriced and the original price isn't marketed higher to make a better profit on sales?
After studying the advertisement, I think I would react differently if I saw it again. I would be more aware of what it is offering, how much it will cost me, and as well what audience the NHL is targeting. The NHL is promising that I would be able to view any NHL game I wanted, live, or at a later date. This applies to the dreams or ideals of the hockey society in a few key ways. Firstly, any big hockey fan would love to be able to watch every game of their favorite team, but time constraints, jobs, and families can likely interfere with leisure time and watching the games on television. The audience the NHL is targetting would be more likely to purchase this package if one, they did not have access to watch the games, or it would be cheaper than paying for a television package to watch every game. I certainly would purchase this package were it not for myself being a poor college student.
Rosalynd Williams provides a good example of how mass media introduced a different consumer society in her essay "Dreams Worlds of Consumption". Williams provides the example of department stores. Department stores were a new thing, the freedom to browse and fantasize about owning things while not being obligated to buy them. As well, this introduced a different setting for shopping. No longer did consumers have a large say in how prices were established, giving way to a more corporate world. Department stores were organized to inflame and increase the desires of materials things and feelings. Expositions, trade fairs, and even amusement parks are other examples of this mass consumer society. These events and services can hold thousands of people and offer a multitude of things to do, buy, and see. Electrical lighting played a huge role in mass consumer society. In the 1900 exposition it was the first time electrical lighting was used on a mass scale, showing how artificial light and how useful it is. As with corporate department stores, lighting was immediately exploited for commercial purposes. This allowed the progress of advertisement billboards, and initiated the start of a consumer society where products are mass produced and mass distributed.
Jackson Lears essay entitled, "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society" shows a different aspect of how consumer society came about, through advertising. Advertisers' outlook on how to appeal to consumers changed drastically with a new sensibility, that the office men of the time needed to vent frustration and and longing through purchases. Advertisers' continued to view their audience as a childlike culture, that consumers were easily pleased. This gave way to products that were cheaply made and sold for higher prices.
Advertisements can promise a lot of things, from sunny beach vacations to a vaccum cleaner that will never clog or jam. The National Hockey League recently published an advertisement for a special rebate offer on the NHL Game Center Live, an internet service that allows buyers to watch any NHL game in TV-quality streaming. My initial reaction to this ad was one of interest. I am a big hockey fan and I love going to see the Capitals and watching their games on television. I don't have a television in my dorm room, so this sparked my interest a great deal. I also noticed how they put a large emphasis on the "Live" aspect, that is, watching games in real-time and not a pre-recorded version of them. The advertisement is very straight forward; it has a black background, the NHL logo, and the text saying "NHL Game Center Live." I noticed that "Live" is blue text while the rest is white, giving it emphasis and showing what exactly the advertisement offers. I think the advertisement is mostly black and white because that is predominantly the setting of a hockey rink. The ice in its majority is white and the puck is black. This seems like the NHL is trying to attract older hockey fans. Older meaning they have followed the sport longer than most, not that they are necessarily older in age. It seems very obvious what the NHL is offering. It is a paid service that allows buyers to watch NHL games live and on the internet at a discounted price until the special offer expires. My initial reaction to the "special offer" part of the advertisement was that of skepticism. I feel as though when special offers are presented to consumers as a ploy to convince them to buy something. While this is the obvious aim of an advertisement, I'm not sure that it's actually a fair deal. How do we know that the special offer isn't overpriced and the original price isn't marketed higher to make a better profit on sales?
After studying the advertisement, I think I would react differently if I saw it again. I would be more aware of what it is offering, how much it will cost me, and as well what audience the NHL is targeting. The NHL is promising that I would be able to view any NHL game I wanted, live, or at a later date. This applies to the dreams or ideals of the hockey society in a few key ways. Firstly, any big hockey fan would love to be able to watch every game of their favorite team, but time constraints, jobs, and families can likely interfere with leisure time and watching the games on television. The audience the NHL is targetting would be more likely to purchase this package if one, they did not have access to watch the games, or it would be cheaper than paying for a television package to watch every game. I certainly would purchase this package were it not for myself being a poor college student.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
The First Presidential Debate
Both candidates in the debate seemed to avoid specific answers to the questions asked. Dan Kenitz states in his post on BipolarNation that McCain did a better job. I disagree however. McCain seemed almost agitated and antsy when answering his questions, as well he didn't seem very attentive to Obama's responses. I do agree with Kenitz that neither candidate had a blowout. They seemed to argue more about the economy than discussing other issues, like foreign policy. I also agree with Kenitz that while Obama isn't the best debater, McCain's strange facial gestures (that weird smile he makes when Obama criticizes him) distracted me from his own points. The fact that both candidates spent a half hour on the economy rather than on foreign affairs is troubling, not to mention it's hard to make a good impression on what each candidate believes about foreign policy. Kenitz argument that McCain held his own in the debate seems laughable to me. It really felt like McCain didn't know anything about the facts he was stating. The fact that Republicans want to give Obama a hard time for not remembering the name of the soldier on his wristband seems like they want to avoid the real issues. Kenitz also claims that Obama is smug, when he looked down to see the name of the soldier. This seems like a personal attack on Obama, detracting from the real problems. To be honest and clear, a candidates personal life is really of no importance, as long as they deliver on the goods and promises they make when running for office. If a man saves 100 people and goes home to beat his wife (unlikely), it isn't the public's judgment that particularly matters. Our personal life is personal. Kenitz makes an argument that neither candidate won, and that people generally "think their candidate won." He claims ironically that you could put Cookie Monster from Sesame Street on the debate and he would win because of his "insistence on spelling and constant reference to the word cookies." It's hard to believe that Dan Kenitz actually watched the debate after this statement. I do think Obama was better off after the debate that McCain. Obama gave much more specific answers though he wasn't always on topic. Obama seemed like he was giving answers, while McCain just spat out babble. It was hard to understand McCain's stance on the issues, like the bail-out plan for mortgages. In Kenitz final statement, he makes the case that McCain was more specific about his answers to foreign policy questions, like about what countries he has been to and when. It seems completely irrelevant to the debate though. Is it very essential to know when a candidate has been in another country? Not unless it's an inquiry into what they were doing there, and this doesn't seem like the case for either candidate. I'm curious about the next debate and if Obama or McCain will change their stance on an issue.
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Why So Literate?
Speech and writing are both very effective forms of communication, whether in the social aspect or to transfer information. The negatives of writing far outweigh those of speech however. In ancient culture for example, writing was restricted solely to government, fiscal, magical and religious properties. So the average citizen normally didn't know how to write, while everyone knew how to speak the language. Scribes became a privileged, restricted class. So while not many were able to write, they were all able to converse through speech. Speech allowed any person to communicate and transfer information, as well as on a much more personal matter. Writing also gave birth to new religions, which were used to control the people, acting as a "creative voice, and master of books." Words became imbued with power, segregating the two followings of religion and magic.[1] Magicians used force or trickery to control people. Writing also limits the amount of information you can put on papyrus. It can been stolen and read by enemies of your people, while speech can only be heard, and thus more difficult for information to be stolen. Writing also led to believe that the gods' concern was capitalist, landlord and bank. As we know in today's society, capitalism doesn't provide much for the middle and lower class. It's concern is with the rich, and taxing the middle class and poor. Writing also only provided for a limited view of the world, a religious one. Scripture was the main function of writing, as well as practically every act of civil life was a matter of law to be recorded by the scribes. So everything related to religion and law was recorded.[1] This didn't allow many to learn and share their own beliefs. This caused the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of priests and temple organizations. This also hindered the control of organized warfare, as priests and temple weren't experienced in war. Speech however is more straight forward, and there is no room for misconception. Writing had to be very precise, and if not done so could lead to a vague order that would cripple a city-state. [1]
Writing has generally been seen as a force of good. But there is a darker side in the expansion of literacy. Writing has been used to tell lies, to confuse, and exploit, as well as "make minds lazy". As Socrates said, "you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom," in reference to the Egyptian god Thoth. Socrates argues that people will read many things, but without instruction they will be truly ignorant. I agree with Socrates in that you need some sort of guidance when reading or the material simply doesn't have and contextual value. Without being able to relate it personally you won't make much sense of it. Just as Stalin used propaganda during the Cold War, Babylonians and Assyrians along with the Egyptians and Hittites used writing to tell their own side of a story, to reaffirm who was boss and in charge. Writing like this causes the poverty and despair afflicted on Soviet Russia during World War II and the Cold War. Writing can be molded to the users needs and wants, while speech is personal, and though can be evil, requires much more boldness to use. For example, you would deface a friend right in front of them, but some wouldn't hesitate doing it behind their backs. This simple example shows how speech is a superior in while it can be used for evil, it's much more difficult or strenuous to do so. Another downsized to writing and literacy is if you can’t read what’s been written, you have no way to actually understand it. It’s impossible. But if you can’t speak the same language as someone, you can still communicate to them through hand gestures and body language.[1]
Tokens changed society in several ways. First and foremost, tokens were the predecessors to modern currency. Tokens could be used to barter and trade livestock, food, or other necessities that were available. As well, they were very adaptable to the needs of society. If a new food source was discovered, tokens could be made to accommodate them. As well, tokens change society by giving power to the individual. If you were the only one with a certain item, everyone would have to come to you, increasing trade and building an economy out of a bartering city-state. It wasn't the tokens themselves that caused the birth of economy, it was rather how they were used as symbols for purchasable things. For example, they could have easily been made to represent something of the church, like scriptures to be borrow and you could only do so with a token. Likely, the only ones with tokens would be priests and scribes who needed and wanted to read scriptures. The average citizen however would not have access, and things could have turned out much differently. There are a few negatives to tokens though. Tokens eventually lead up to the society we have today, which is much more complicated and confusing. If you are not educated enough, you won't be able to make a decent living in today's society. Also, tokens place a money value on something, which can be misconstrued. If one were to place a money value on sheep, for instance, what's to say you can't place a money value on someone's life? It leads to a more cynical, dark view of the world depending on how the technology is used and seen by the eyes of society.
[1] Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology,
Culture, Society, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2007, originally published in 2003.
Writing has generally been seen as a force of good. But there is a darker side in the expansion of literacy. Writing has been used to tell lies, to confuse, and exploit, as well as "make minds lazy". As Socrates said, "you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom," in reference to the Egyptian god Thoth. Socrates argues that people will read many things, but without instruction they will be truly ignorant. I agree with Socrates in that you need some sort of guidance when reading or the material simply doesn't have and contextual value. Without being able to relate it personally you won't make much sense of it. Just as Stalin used propaganda during the Cold War, Babylonians and Assyrians along with the Egyptians and Hittites used writing to tell their own side of a story, to reaffirm who was boss and in charge. Writing like this causes the poverty and despair afflicted on Soviet Russia during World War II and the Cold War. Writing can be molded to the users needs and wants, while speech is personal, and though can be evil, requires much more boldness to use. For example, you would deface a friend right in front of them, but some wouldn't hesitate doing it behind their backs. This simple example shows how speech is a superior in while it can be used for evil, it's much more difficult or strenuous to do so. Another downsized to writing and literacy is if you can’t read what’s been written, you have no way to actually understand it. It’s impossible. But if you can’t speak the same language as someone, you can still communicate to them through hand gestures and body language.[1]
Tokens changed society in several ways. First and foremost, tokens were the predecessors to modern currency. Tokens could be used to barter and trade livestock, food, or other necessities that were available. As well, they were very adaptable to the needs of society. If a new food source was discovered, tokens could be made to accommodate them. As well, tokens change society by giving power to the individual. If you were the only one with a certain item, everyone would have to come to you, increasing trade and building an economy out of a bartering city-state. It wasn't the tokens themselves that caused the birth of economy, it was rather how they were used as symbols for purchasable things. For example, they could have easily been made to represent something of the church, like scriptures to be borrow and you could only do so with a token. Likely, the only ones with tokens would be priests and scribes who needed and wanted to read scriptures. The average citizen however would not have access, and things could have turned out much differently. There are a few negatives to tokens though. Tokens eventually lead up to the society we have today, which is much more complicated and confusing. If you are not educated enough, you won't be able to make a decent living in today's society. Also, tokens place a money value on something, which can be misconstrued. If one were to place a money value on sheep, for instance, what's to say you can't place a money value on someone's life? It leads to a more cynical, dark view of the world depending on how the technology is used and seen by the eyes of society.
[1] Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology,
Culture, Society, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2007, originally published in 2003.
Sunday, 14 September 2008
Evening, Commissioner..
Dan Kenitz states in his article that the socialist views of Barrack Obama would cripple our nations economically. I disagree somewhat with Kenitz points. Kenitz states how Obama's "economic justice" policies would cut military funding and "our own economy at the knees." I disagree with Kenitz point that Obama's socialist policies would cripple our economy. I believe that we need more liberal and socialist ideals that will help the citizen. By cutting military funding and increasing the minimum wage, we can put more money straight into the pocket of the average citizen, rather than heavily tax them to pay the lucridous amount of money we spend on our military. Take for instance Japan after World War II. Japan's first use of overseas military since World War II was the deployment in Iraq. As Japan didn't spend so much on military they focused on their economy and are now hailed as one of the most technicalogical countries of the world. Since 2001, the United States used almost 700 billion dollars on military spending.[1] So Kenitz’s argument that Obama's policies would cripple our government seems unfounded. He compares Obama's policies to those of Castro's, insinuating that Obama will make everyone equal, in poorness, hunger, and a oppression. Kenitz views are very radical in suggesting that Obama would communize our society. Kenitz makes it look like he is in favor of a Republican President, which is the last thing that our country needs. I think Bush's eight year term has provided sufficient evidence that power shouldn't be in the hands of the corporate world. Mike Huckabee, however did have an interesting solution to the problem of poverty in our country. His plan was to eliminate the IRS and income tax, and increase sales tax to make up for the different. While you pay much more for goods and services, you have more money in your pocket to begin with that you can choose how to spend it. This idea is known as Fair Tax, and also includes a monthly rebate from the government.[2] Kenitz also states that Obama's father insinuated that the populace would pay for all the services Obama is proposing, like free college tuition, universal health care, universal 401ks, free job training, more subsidized housing, as well as a living wage with a ten dollar minimum wage indexed to inflation. But all these things could be easily accomplished if we limited our military spending, which Kenitz argues heavily against when he states he would rather have an "army of soldiers", rather than Obama's "army of teachers." Kenitz tries to deface Obama by implying that he masks his socialist ideas by calling it, economic justice. But isn't that it is? Helping the average middle class worker, and taxing the rich to provide for the poor?
BipolarNation.com : Masking His Socialism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)